Too many employees and not enough work, given productivity gains from automation / computerization. They are bored out of their minds, what else do you expect. It is all our fault for expecting too little and giving them whatever they whine for. I am sure the rest of the government is no better.

There's no cost basis accounting in tax-sheltered vehicles.

You might find the following relevant:
I have a long standing mutual fund holding in my IRA but in March I had some idle cash in the account and I added to that mutual fund, which is subject to a 2% redemption fees if sold within 90 days of purchase.
The fund prospectus says, "In determining whether a redemption fee is applicable to a particular redemption, it is assumed that the redemption is first of shares acquired pursuant to the reinvestment of dividends and capital gains distributions, and next of other shares held by the shareholder for the longest period of time."
I tried to sell shares I bought a few years ago.
Schwab Rep and supervisor are adamant that cost basis method in IRA controls for purpose of applying the 2% redemption fees. They say the March purchase taints the sale because average cost basis is used in that account and thus they have to apply the 2% redemption fees. (The strange part is, their reps are not trained and their system are not designed for their own literature, which correctly says, "Assets using the Average Cost Method will default to the FIFO Lot Selection Method when disposed." We already know the brokerages thoroughly confuse the distinction between cost method and lot selection. If they actually applied the FIFO lot selection as their literature says, there is no redemption fees in my case.)
The above issue is also there at Fidelity. We discussed this in the Fidelity Community in the past year - I go there very rarely these days but anyone active there probably can pull up that discussion. My memory is not good re Fidelity's exact process but they might even just apply average cost basis method (means test the last purchased shares to see if there is a taint) in applying the fund level redemption fees, not withstanding what the customer's selection is. Posters should pay attention to what Fidelity does or read that discussion in Fidelity Community where Fidelity employees participated.
It is interesting how these brokerages' own short term redemption fees ($50) is applied on a FIFO basis but these brokerages use some other method for purposes of applying the fund's redemption fees, irrespective of what the prospectus says. I guess it is easy for them to have a simpler punitive system, rather than customize for each fund. Most customers do not select a cost (or lot) method in retirement accounts and so they are defaulted to a average method. Something to be aware of.
While it is likely differences among funds exist, I have only seen funds apply FIFO.

Per CNBC:
Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of Donald Trump’s Truth Social network, reported a net loss of $327.6 million, with total revenue at $770,500 in its first fiscal quarter.
< - >
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/20/trump-media-djt-q1-2024-earnings.html
.. I found the key bullet points of their earnings press release pathetically amusing, too. Sounds like they're desperate for some positive talking points....
~ Completed the Business Combination with Digital World Acquisition Corp. (DJT), Successfully Debuted as Public Company, and Now Has Over 621,000 Retail Shareholders. ~
~ Commenced Trading on Nasdaq, Under Symbol DJT on March 26, 2024 ~
~ Company Has Sufficient Working Capital as a Result of a Going Public Event ~
~ Signs First Contracts for Deployment of its TV Streaming Platform ~

I searched for credit cards with good overall cash-back policies and minimal hassles.
I didn't want to play games with rotating categories, travel rewards, or some other BS.
Show me the money!
My experience with PenFed credit cards is that their points are worth less than $0.01 when redeemed for cash back or statement credit. So, the 5x points for gas and 3x points for supermarkets isn’t quite equal to 5% and 3%.
There are two different matters here - how you earn rewards (flat rate, special fixed categories, rotating categories) and how you redeem them (cash, miles, unrestricted bill credit, restricted bill credit).
On the earning side, rotating categories are the most nuisance to deal with. Even here, one can get some benefit by using a card for bills you pay automatically, like a gym or a cable/streaming service. When a rotating category card starts giving more rewards for a category, change your autobilling for services in that category to use the card. Change your autobilling back at the end of the three month rotation period. You don't have to think about categories any other time.
Fixed categories like PenFed's Platinum Rewards card (gas, supermarkets) let you avoid the hassle of dealing with continually changing categories. You can mimic this effect with Citibank Custom Cash by selecting a single category for which to use the card. Though with fixed categories you still need to remember which card you have dedicated for which category.
Truly minimal hassle means fixed rate bonus, no limit, no expiration.
On the redemption side, anything other than cash back (cash or statement credit) or actual frequent flier miles reduces redemption value. If you've got $30 in value that you redeem for a gift card (unless at a discounted price) you'll get $30 of purchasing power in the gift card, but you'll lose the opportunity to earn more cash back when you spend that $30. You'll be using the gift card and not your credit card.
Then there are redemptions that are worth less than a penny per point. This is a problem with PenFed's Platinum Rewards and even with Fidelity's credit card (if not redeemed into a Fidelity account). It is not a problem with Pen Fed's Cash Rewards card (flat 2% if you have a free Penn Fed checking account).
Some cards let you get statement credits for full value, but restrict how much you can redeem. This is often tied to travel. Capital One Venture miles can be redeemed for credit against past travel expenses (or for cash at a reduced redemption rate); BofA's travel card restricts mile redemptions to credits for past travel. If you do any traveling this is merely a hassle. If you have no travel expenses at all, this is a major impediment.
Each person's tolerance for pain (hassle) and each person's spending pattern are different. I'm okay with rotating categories, but only for supplemental cards. I keep it relatively simple by using a primary card that credits me with dollars, flat rate rewards, and no redemption restrictions. Secondary is a fixed category card. Tertiary are rotating category cards, if I remember what the categories du jour are.

@bee, now try to run 10 years to 2020, i.e. 2010-2020 (i.e. 1/1/2010-12/30/2020 under Year-to-year), but you can not. The result is truncated to 1/1/2015-12/31/2020 (well under 10 years). Then see my post just before yours - my guess is that your 10-year test periods were all pre-mid-2014 except the full 2014/2015-2024.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=1F7QzYmcVWRuBv5WmY6L5B

Microsoft’s AI / Chat gpt offered up these (among other) observations. I’ve edited them a bit for brevity.
“The Return Stacked® U.S. Stocks & Managed Futures ETF (RSST) aims for long-term capital appreciation by investing in two complementary strategies: (1) U.S. Equity Strategy: This part of the fund seeks exposure to U.S. stocks. For every $1 invested, the fund aims to provide $1 of exposure to its U.S. equity strategy. (2) Managed Futures Strategy: The fund also invests in managed futures contracts. Again, for every $1 invested, it aims to provide $1 of exposure to its managed futures strategy.
Risk Factors:
Derivatives Risk: The use of derivatives (such as futures contracts) may carry more risk than other investments.
Commodity Risk: Investing in physical commodities can be extremely volatile.
Commodity-Linked Derivatives Tax Risk: Changes in legislation or regulations may affect the tax treatment of commodity-linked derivative instruments.
Foreign and Emerging Markets Risk
Leverage Risk: The fund uses leverage to stack the total return of its holdings in the U.S. equity strategy and managed futures strategy together.”
-
Morningstar assigns RSST a “Negative” rating. While I own 1 or 2 of their “Neutral” rated funds, I’d probably steer clear of any having their rare Negative grade.
Morningstar cites high fees (which don’t look excessive to me) and high manager turnover along with a lack of manager experience operating this fund (which is apparently quite new). M* seems to think the methodology used (process) is suspect and cites momentum investing as one part of the process,
Lipper apparently doesn’t yet have enough data to rate RSST

The graphic is set for the 5 days ending May 17, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire.
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- MINT = +.13% / +2.43% Pimco Ultra Short Term Enhanced Bonds
--- EWW = +.72% / +1.64% (I Shares, Mexico)
MMKT note: Fidelity core mmkt's yields remain unchanged this week, with core acct's yields at 4.95% (SPAXX) and 4.98% (FDRXX).
NOTE: A slightly lower CPI moved the U.S. equity/bond sectors. The Wednesday report saw solid gains, with some pull back at the weeks end.The broad U.S. equity and bond sectors finished the week with generally positive performance in most sectors through an erratic market week, with 'growth and tech.' again having the edge up. China large cap (FXI etf), had another week of 'performance+', with a +22 YTD; as well as DXJ etf (Japan large cap hedged), which is now +24.1 YTD. * China is pumping large amounts of monies into that economy. Bonds in most sectors ended the total week performance with positive gains. Bond funds ranged from +.13% to a +2%, with the ultra short term being the lowest positive (as expected) and the very long term being the best sectors. See the 'graphic' link at the beginning of this write for details of weekly returns.
NEW: 1 week 'heat map' by sectors. This is an interactive graphic. You may hover the computer pointer over the various blocks to view portions of sectors and/or stocks within those sectors. NOTE: to the left of the graphic, one may change the 1 week performance drop down menu to another time frame. Another example: at the left edge of the graphic, select exchange traded funds and then 1 week or a time period of your choice.
Remain curious,
Catch

Oh, I wasn't talking about Fidelity/Elan. I was thinking, perhaps of one of the AAA cards, though they are provided by Bread Financial/Comenity Bank. That is not well regarded either. So a AAA card may not be a better alternative.
I'm looking for a backup card for foreign travel. Backup means it won't be used frequently but reliability is important. It seems that QuickSilver (Capital One) changed from Visa to MC a couple of years ago. It checks all my boxes.
It pays only 1.5% cash back, but for an infrequently used card a half percent difference isn't important. What does matter is that it has no annual fee or foreign transaction fee. And MC means it complements the Visa card I use for foreign travel. A modest signup bonus ($200) is a small plus. Not to mention half off coffee drinks in their cafes.
Obviously, each person's criteria are different. The Fidelity card works nicely for many.

BIVRX gained 61.2% in 2021, and then followed that up by rising 49.5% in 2022. This "long-short" fund has 6 positive calendar years of gains, 0 negative.
However, in 2024 it is down YTD..... close to (-9%) thus far. It's worth a small allocation to me. Long-short funds are so funky.

Yes, but there is a downside to staying within the 25% MLP limit.

40 Act Funds – RIC Compliant – Less than 25% MLPs
Funds that own less than 25% MLPs do not pay taxes at the fund level, enabling them to pass through the entire return to their investors. The return of capital benefit from owning MLPs is muted due to the limit imposed on MLP ownership. Investors interested in RIC-compliant energy infrastructure funds should research what the fund owns for the other 75%. Common positions include midstream C-Corporations, utility companies, exploration and production companies, refiners, and MLP affiliates structured as C-Corporations.
Advantages:

• Ownership of the underlying securities
  
• Little to no tracking error

Disadvantages:

• Generally lower yield

https://etfdb.com/index-education/mlp-investing/

If any fund (mutual fund, closed-end fund, or ETF) owns more than 25% MLPs, the fund will be taxed as a corporation. Accordingly, there are two types of MLP funds – those structured as RICs, which own up to 25% MLPs, and those structured as corporations (or C-Corp funds), which tend to be 90-100% MLPs.

https://www.etftrends.com/energy-infrastructure-channel/beyond-the-k-1-tax-treatment-for-an-mlp-fund-vs-an-mlp/
MLPFX is of the latter type. Thus, like and individual investor in an MLP, it owes taxes on income generated by the MLP. The tax gimmick in MLPs is that their dividends are treated as returns of capital. So one does not owe taxes immediately on this income. MLPFX passes these ROCs through to its investors.
Ultimately the tax bill comes due. The return of capital reduces the cost basis of an MLP so that when it is sold, the gain is not based on the purchase price but on the purchase price minus the "tax-free" divs received. Since MLPFX is taxed as a corporation, it will owe those taxes.
"Upon a Fund’s sale of a portfolio security, the Fund will be liable for previously deferred taxes."
Prospectus
These deferred tax expenses are reported as expenses of the fund as they are accrued, i.e. at an estimated rate of 5.44% per year. That's the cost of creating a wrapper fund to convert MLP K1s into 1099s.

One disadvantage of investing in a C-Corp fund instead of individual MLPs is the potential for tax drag to weigh on fund performance relative to its underlying holdings. C-Corp funds accrue a deferred tax liability for the portion of distributions considered to be a tax-deferred return of capital and for gains in underlying holdings.

ETFtrends (cited above).
Aside from Fidelity Treasury Portfolio, I can't find any underlying funds in the portfolio.

Looking at MLPFX Prospectus, it's organized as a taxable C-corp (not as a typical passthrough fund), so the ER includes potential deferred income tax liability from unrealized gains/losses. Is that a real expense? May be someone else can throw a light on this twist.
https://connect.rightprospectus.com/Invesco/TADF/00143K277/P

Jeff DeMaso discusses Vanguard's new CEO among other topics.
https://www.independentvanguardadviser.com/a-new-leader-comes-to-vanguard/

Thanks for the link. Always appreciated.
He writes:

it certainly feels like Vanguard's culture has been changing already. Vanguard adding fees and selling off non-core businesses—like its small-biz retirement accounts—lends a sense that the bottom line has taken priority from the shareholder (owner) experience

Though the antecedent (Vanguard returning to its core business) was apparent, I had drawn the opposite conclusion.
Some companies manage to expand their lines of business successfully. Many do not and decide to focus on strengthening their core competencies. For Vanguard, that has always been inexpensive, conservatively managed funds.
Between 2002 and 2019 Vanguard offered a cash management account, Vanguard Advantage. It was offered only to Voyager Select ($500K+) and Flagship ($1M+) customers; the former had to pay $30/year and $4.95/mo if you used BillPay.
https://www.investmentnews.com/industry-news/news/vanguard-to-end-its-small-cash-management-service-78435
https://www.mymoneyblog.com/vanguardadvantage-all-in-one-checking-account-at-vanguard.html
This was not Vanguard's core business, and it wasn't going to put money into it unless it saw it getting traction with it well-heeled customers. Today it offers a barebones cash management account that offers nothing but ACH transfers (and a bank sweep) - minimal services that are cheap to provide. Even here, it started with a controlled rollout.
It launched three managed payout funds in 2008 (talk about bad timing), merged them into a single fund in 2014, eliminated the managed payout feature in 2020 (renaming the fund Managed Allocation Fund), and ultimately merged the fund away altogether in 2023.
https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/who-we-are/pressroom/Press-Release-Vanguard-Announces-Changes-To-Managed-Payout-Fund-02282020.html
It offered a variable annuity (through an outside insurer) with underlying Vanguard funds. Again not a core product, it got out of the business of administering the VA in 2019.
https://corporate.vanguard.com/content/corporatesite/us/en/corp/who-we-are/pressroom/Press-Release-Vanguard-Transitions-Variable-Annuity-Offering-061919.html
In that press release, Vanguard even comments that it will be "Focusing on core offerings". This is nothing new; it didn't start in 2024 with Vanguard shedding its small business retirement accounts.
Bogle built a solid money management firm. Once he left, Vanguard dabbled in expanding financial products. For the most part, it hasn't done this well. While still dabbling it has often retreated to its core business. Sticking to one's knitting does not mean that one is placing the bottom line ahead of shareholder interests.
This is not to say that Vanguard shouldn't be spending more to support its huge number of investors. It can, and IMHO should, nudge people toward electronic trading and communication. But it also needs to improve its human communications as well. This is not a matter of shedding lines of business. This is a matter of providing decent service for its core businesses.

And they don't tell you much about how much they get paid. Most "directors" are listed as directors for dozens of funds
You may be confusing executive management (full time job) pay with the compensation given to The Vanguard Group's board of directors and/or the compensation given to each Vanguard Fund's board of trustees.
It's not unusual for companies to keep secret their executive (management) compensation. According to Bloomberg (via Investment News) "Vanguard hasn’t reported figures on pay to senior officers since the 1990s."
https://www.investmentnews.com/industry-news/archive/vanguard-keeps-its-own-management-pay-under-wraps-70402
But that doesn't seem to be what you have in mind. You describe what some people get as "Not bad for what, a few hours work a month or so!". Those are not full time senior officers, those are directors or trustees.
AFAIK, The Vanguard Group's directors receive no compensation for their work on that board. (I'm interested if anyone has concrete information on this.) Rather, they receive compensation for working on trustee boards of individual Vanguard funds. Each board pays a rather modest amount, but when you add up 200 funds, that does come to a pretty penny.
This compensation is public record, easily accessible.
Jeff DeMAso of Independent Vanguard Advisor says that Deana Mulligan got $1.5 million as a director in the six years she was on the Board
Actually, it was about 20% more than that. It's all in SEC filings:
Total compensation from all Vanguard funds (not The Vanguard Group) for Deana Mulligan was:
2023: $330 K
2022: $330 K
2021: $330 K
2020: $287.5K
2019: $287.5K
2018: $287.5K
Total:$1852.5K
Perhaps Jeff DeMaso disregarded the 2023 compensation because Ms. Mulligan chose to defer that compensation. I would still consider her compensated for that year.
FWIW, I used Wellington's SAIs. This data is available in all Vanguard funds' SAIs.

Following are excerpts from a current NPR report:

About 8.9% of credit card balances fell into delinquency over the last year, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — a sign that a growing number of borrowers are feeling the strain of rising prices and high interest rates.
"Everything is more expensive. Debt is more expensive. Rent is more expensive. Food, gas, everything," says Charlie Wise, senior vice president at TransUnion, the credit reporting firm. "Even with relatively healthy wage gains we've seen over last several years, many consumers just aren't keeping up with the price pressures."

Maxed-out borrowers are a big concern-
The New York Fed's report shows the pain is not evenly spread. While many households are on solid financial footing, almost 1 in 5 cardholders is "maxed out," using at least 90% of their credit card limit. That's worrisome, the report says, because maxed-out borrowers are much more likely to fall behind on their bills.
People under 30 and those who live in low-income neighborhoods were particularly likely to be maxed out, according to the report. Among Generation Z borrowers, about 1 in 6 was close to exhausting their credit, compared with 4.8% of baby boomers.

Hank, sounds similar to the Capital One card I got a couple years ago. Cap-1 also gave me $200 if you charged 'x' amount in 'y' amount of time. That limit wasn't hard to reach, so a free $200. I try to use this card as my primary means of paying. I think I've accumulated $5-600 cash back so far. I don't travel a lot, other than visiting the kids in Columbus and Pittsburgh. I don't remember any problems.
I used to be a primarily cash person also, but I now find it very handy and useful to have a record of purchases at your finger tips. I also have a MM with Capital One and use that transfer feature to pay off the card monthly, fwiw.
@hank, are you on Credit Karma? There are a bunch of options there for new cards based on your credit score, fwiw. Most with about the same benefits as the Fidelity card you describe. Many will give you a bonus as I described.

When I moved from TD to Schwab in 2020 after the merger was announced, it took a few days for my cost basis / history to populate, but it did. Same thing happened when I transferred that Schwab account into a new Schwab account last fall so I could (re)gain futures access. So just give it a little time during the chaos. (I had exported my TD records to Excel spreadsheet before I moved, just in case.)
For longer-term investors, I think Schwab's site is more useful than TD's -- you never could see your account history/performance @ TD, but you do at Schwab. They have had a few hiccups w/portfolio income reporting in recent weeks, but it seems to have worked out since.
Unfortunately ThinkDesktop's position reporting doesn't always match with the website, but I only use that for charting and options so I don't rely on the portfolio data -- and that was also a problem at TD, too.
On the whole, I'm satisfied w/Schwab. I've had a few enquiries disappear into the ether and their mobile app has a few quirks, but for the most part it's been a decent ride.
BTW for those who track and/or trade IPOs, Schwab isn't the best and rarely has them. Buf it you do want to play, when making your expression of interest always be sure to indicate it's a 'speculative' trade (even if you see it as a 'growth' think) or else their IPO nanny-state minders will deny your request. (It took a few tries, b/c their IPO nanny-state minders were rather coy about how to answer those questions when I was exploring the site back then.)

Reiterating, "Unfortunately, the industry has done a good job of conflating two different concepts: cost basis and share (lot) selection."
Schwab makes total hash of this distinction in the page I quoted. Again reiterating: "This page conflates cost basis (average vs. actual) and selection method, so perhaps it will work, perhaps not."
As you reported, the instructions on that page apparently don't work even though that page includes "average" among its list of several cost basis methods to choose from. The others given are LIFO, FIFO, Low cost, High cost, Tax Lot Optimizer, and Specified lot.
Elsewhere, Schwab does make a stab at differentiating the two concepts (cost basis and selection method), using its own unique terminology:

There are two components of cost basis accounting at Schwab: the Cost Method and the Lot Selection Method.

• The Cost Method determines how to calculate the cost of securities sold to determine gains and losses.
     1) The Average Cost Method calculates the average price for shares bought and sold ...
     2) The Identified Cost Method reflects the actual cost basis for each individual lot bought or sold. ...
  
• The Lot Selection Method determines the order in which lots are selected.
  • First In, First Out (FIFO) ...
    
  • Last In, First Out (LIFO)...
    
  • High-Cost Lot (HCLOT) ...
    
  • Low-Cost Lot (LCLOT)...
    
  • Tax Lot Optimizer™ (TLO)...

https://client.schwab.com/secure/file/P-4705302/APP105445-02-01-fill.pdf
That pdf includes the form you requested of Schwab: "Change the Cost Basis Accounting Method on My Schwab Brokerage Account". One doesn't have to log in to access it, and it appears in its own page (not a popup).
Here's Schwab's full 10 page cost basis disclosure statement, April 2024.
https://www.schwab.com/resource/cost-basis-disclosure-statement

I would wait to check tomorrow or day after your unrealized gains and losses information as cost basis information of your positions, especially the date when a position was opened, is screwed up. E.g., most of my long term gains are shown as short term gains because they used a different date of acquisition. I am told they are going to re-run and fix it overnight tonight.

Schwab did not carryover my cost basis settings and defaulted stocks and ETFs to FIFO and mutual funds to average cost basis. Strangely, the cost basis settings at Schwab look very primitive relative to how they were at TD. I do not see a way to change online the cost basis for mutual funds. Called the rep and was told I have to submit a paper form request to change the default method for mutual funds and once selected, I can not change the method at the time of the trade or otherwise, except through another paper form request.

Unfortunately, the industry has done a good job of conflating two different concepts: cost basis and share (lot) selection.
There are only two cost basis methods: actual basis and average basis. Generally speaking, stocks must use actual basis. (There is an exception for some dividend reinvestment plans, but let's not go there.) FIFO is a way of selecting shares sold; it is not a cost basis method.
If shares are being tracked using average basis, then the oldest shares are automatically sold first (FIFO) - there is no choice. If shares are being tracked using actual cost, then there are a variety of methods to select which shares are sold. You can explicitly indicate which shares you are selling (up to the date of settlement), or you can let the broker select them for you using your chosen algorithm, such as FIFO, HIFO, tax optimization, etc.
In order to change to or from average basis for a mutual fund account holding covered shares, one must submit a change request in writing to the broker. (One cannot change from average cost on uncovered shares without IRS permission.)
https://fairmark.com/investment-taxation/capital-gain/selling-mutual-fund-shares/changing-cost-basis-methods/
Where the rep seems to have gone awry was in telling you that this writing has to be on paper. It can also be an online directive. According to Schwab's website:

To change your default cost basis method, log in to your Schwab.com account and select your account icon in the upper right corner and select Account Settings. This brings up a page where you can change your cost basis method for each of your accounts.

https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/save-on-taxes-know-your-cost-basis
That's dated Feb 9, 2024, so I assume it is current. This page conflates cost basis (average vs. actual) and selection method, so perhaps it will work, perhaps not.